MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323297901 · doi:10.1177/1750698014547294

Curating memories of armed state actors in Peru’s era of transitional justice

2014· article· en· W2323297901 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia E. Milton

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransitional justiceState (computer science)Political scienceCommissionCognitive reframingCollusionDictatorshipTerrorismHuman rightsOrganised crimeLawEconomic JusticeDemocracyGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten years have passed since the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación) published their findings on the conflict that claimed over 69,000 lives from 1980 to 2000. While the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación placed primary responsibility for deaths and disappearances (54%) on the insurrectionary group Shining Path ( Sendero Luminoso), it also named armed state actors as having systematically committed acts of violence. Publicly shamed for their collusion in the corrupt Fujimori government, state security forces initially lent their support to the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación and to the transition to democracy. Yet, over the last decade, armed state actors have appropriated the language, imagery and mechanisms of human rights memory entrepreneurs to advance their own versions of Peru’s recent past which oppose the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación’s findings while highlighting state actors’ heroism. This article examines two such endeavors to reframe this past, the National Police Terrorism Unit (DINCOTE) museum and the Armed Forces Monument to the Heroes of Chavín de Huántar.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemory StudiesSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207